A Lesson for Nonprofits about Public Perception from the Crisis Text Line Controversy
A controversy involving the nonprofit organization Crisis Text Line’s sharing of anonymized data with a related for-profit entity has been a major topic of conversation recently following a lengthy report by Politico. While the specifics of this situation may be unique, this story is a lesson to all nonprofits that public perception should always be considered as one of the main factors in any decision, and this public perception can be just as important as legal formalities.
Crisis Text Line (CTL) is a tech-driven nonprofit founded in 2013 that trains volunteers to provide mental health support and crisis intervention via text message conversations. CTL’s approach to training and counseling is informed by analysis of the data generated from the many text message conversations that take place on its platform, the privacy of which CTL has reportedly made significant efforts to protect. Recognizing that the expertise CTL has developed could have a commercial use, CTL decided to spin off a for-profit subsidiary called Loris in 2018 which would sell artificial intelligence software to help companies provide more empathetic customer service support. CTL holds an ownership stake in the company, along with private investors. CTL Board members saw this as an opportunity to generate additional revenue while also furthering the organization’s mission by “put[ting] more empathy into the world.”
The crux of the controversy is that CTL had entered into an agreement to share anonymized data from its text conversations with Loris to aid the development of the for-profit services. This sparked an intense public backlash, prompting CTL to end the arrangement a few days after the first Politico report (after initially defending its practices). The criticisms mainly focused on concerns that even anonymized data could potentially be traced back to specific individuals, and that persons texting in a moment of crisis could not be expected to give meaningful, fully informed consent to this use of their data.
An interesting aspect of this story is that it appears CTL followed what many would consider standard practices in dealing with its for-profit entity. As many nonprofits are advised to do, CTL used its core skillset to develop an additional source of revenue. Rather than distract from CTL’s main mission, it spun this business into a separate for-profit entity, and it appears that CTL’s dealings with Loris were based on arm’s length terms independently approved by each entity’s Board. CTL reportedly included this use of the data in its terms of service and privacy policy, to which all people who use the service must agree. And it appears that CTL’s Board put a lot of thought into these practices, as described in a fascinating article by one of CTL’s founding Board members, who now regrets the decision.
Yet the public reaction was largely one of outrage. And therein lies a key lesson that nonprofits should take away from this story: the public perception of an action can be just as important as the legal formalities. The following are some key aspects of the public reaction that seem to have caught the Board by surprise:
Many people perceived the customer service mission of the for-profit as being incongruous with the nonprofit’s mental health mission.
For many, the fact that texters technically consented to the data sharing was not sufficient to resolve the ethical issues.
Data sharing is a very sensitive issue that is currently a source of much public concern in general. As we’ve stated before, rules, regulations, and compliance often take a back seat to people’s fears, anxiety, hopes, and feelings.
Planning Tip – Consider forming an advisory committee to help the Board explore and consider the many difficult mission, ethics, and values questions that may arise related to new endeavors. Board and staff leadership by themselves cannot always be expected to grasp all of the big-picture factors at play. Thus, outside perspectives can be crucial to help the organization to fully see and examine these types of issues.
In trying to innovate, grow, and create new sources of revenue, it can be easy for an organization to overlook how a decision might positively or negatively impact the trust of the public. Public trust is a nonprofit’s most important asset, so protection of an organization’s reputation must be at the core of every decision.
